Casey Muratori dissects the consequences of Windows 8's closed distribution model. "But how realistic is the assumption that the Windows desktop will still be a usable computing platform in the future? And what would be the consequences were it to disappear, leaving Windows users with only the closed software ecosystem introduced in Windows 8? To answer these questions, this volume of Critical Detail examines the immediate and future effects of Microsoft's current certification requirements, explores in depth what history predicts for the lifespan of the classic Windows desktop, and takes a pragmatic look at whether an open or closed ecosystem would be better for Microsoft as a company." The section that details how none - none - of this year's greatest games (or last year's fantastic Skyrim) and only one of this year's Emmy-nominated TV shows pass Microsoft's rules sent chills down my spine.

"So I don't have an issue with these stores, as long as you can side load. And currently you can side load on the desktop, which is the only part of Windows 8 that actually matters to me. As for Windows RT, well... that ain't Windows 8"

Agree, if sideloading is possible (along with competing stores, etc), I have no problem with software distribution stores.

The thing is, they desperately want to monopolise 3rd party software distribution, which they cannot do on the windows desktop. It's technically impossible for microsoft to control the distribution of new desktop applications without breaking compatibility with existing ones. That's a real catch-22 for microsoft. This is the reason MS is pushing the label of "legacy" for desktop and shoving us towards metro so hard, even to the point of making desktop usage less friendly.

If they sold a windows 8 standalone desktop (no bundled metro), I am positive it would sell very well, probably even better than with metro, but it wouldn't help microsoft transform into the software gatekeepers they want to be.

Well of course if being gatekeepers of an app store would make them more money, that's what they'd want to do. They ARE a business, after all. And before they can officially ditch the desktop and make Metro the new thing, they first have to make Metro not suck. And we're at LEAST 10 years away from that happening

"Well of course if being gatekeepers of an app store would make them more money, that's what they'd want to do. They ARE a business, after all."

There's no arguing that they want to do it, but I'm extremely worried about actively banning competing software distribution channels and consumers loosing access to software-only vendors who have no choice but to submit to microsoft's gatekeepers in order to reach them. I guess since we already agree here, the debate becomes whether we believe government should step in and declare that all app stores must permit competing app stores. I think it would be in the public's interest.